Almonds, Metabolic Syndrome, and the Birth of Misinformation

The secret to a better tan this summer? Douse yourself in beer before sunbathing.

(Wait, you didn't know that? You should pay more attention to TikTok.)

Beer tanning has a relatively simple backstory. A pair of Stony Brook scientists were looking for better ways to reduce freckles, age spots, and other concentrations of melanin. In 2021, they reported that hops, a key ingredient in beer, contains a flavonoid that inhibits melanin synthesis. Social media took note, and by 2023 beer tanning had become a thing.

Our TikTokker friends got it wrong though. If anything, the findings imply that slathering yourself in beer would hinder tanning – and promote sunburn ­– since your skin would produce less melanin.

(Actually, the data doesn't even suggest that, since it was a petri dish-type study looking at the effects of the hops compound on melanocytes.)

Bottom line: if you're outdoors a lot this summer, use sunscreen. If you insist on bringing beer, apply it internally, in moderation (i.e., drink sensibly).

Health misinformation doesn't always have such simple origins.

In this newsletter I'll be discussing a new study with a familiar message: Snacking on almonds can make you healthier.

I find it intriguing – and a little scary – that the specifics of this message have already been misconstrued by the news and social media, not to mention generative AI.

Perhaps there's not much at stake when new almond research is misrepresented. But the misrepresentations are similar to what we see for scarier topics. For this reason, I want to dig in. I want to discuss the study and its media coverage. Think of this newsletter as a case study on how misinformation is born.

The new study

The study appears in the July issue of Nutrition Research and is available now online.

The researchers, led by Dr. Laura Beaver at Oregon State University, wanted to know whether snacking on almonds could help combat metabolic syndrome, defined as the presence of at least three of the following:

• abdominal obesity

• high blood pressure

• high blood sugar

• high triglyceride levels

• low levels of HDL ("good cholesterol")

Depending on how it's defined, at least a third of American adults are now experiencing metabolic syndrome. That's scary too. The longer it goes uncorrected, the greater the risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, dementia, and a number of other health problems.

Dr. Beaver and colleagues assigned a group of adults with metabolic syndrome (ages 35-60) to one of two conditions:

• Almond group: 38 participants ate 320 calories of almonds per day for 12 weeks. (These were unsalted, dry roasted almonds. Daily intake was exactly 2 ounces.)

• Cracker group: 39 participants ate 320 calories of crackers per day for 12 weeks. (This was a mix of Cheese-Its and Kirkland Animal Crackers. Daily intake was 2.17 ounces.)

Uh-oh.

A study needs to be set up in such a way that, if all goes well, the results are informative and clear.

Since we already know that almonds are metabolically healthier than junk food, this particular study isn't poised to tell us much.

A deeper problem is that the researchers recorded almost nothing about participants' eating habits prior to joining the study.

Why is this a problem?

Well, suppose the almond group gets healthier after 12 weeks. Is it because almonds were added to their diet, or because they stopped eating something unhealthy that the almonds replaced?

There's a difference between saying that almonds are good for you, versus saying that giving up deep-fried Oreos is good for you.

The researchers claim to show the former, but their data can't rule out the latter.

A better-designed study would've sampled people with comparable diets (or statistically controlled for key differences), and then compared almond snacks to something other than crap.

Here's one of many better options: pecans.

A similarly-designed study, published earlier this year, showed that 12 weeks of snacking on pecans improves cholesterol and triglyceride levels. So, why not directly compare the metabolic benefits of almonds versus pecans, for instance?

Moving on...

Key findings

Each of the five symptoms of metabolic syndrome was measured at the outset of the study, and then at weeks 4 and 12.

The researchers found no significant changes or group differences for any symptom. In other words, almond snacks had no impact on metabolic syndrome.

Fortunately, after 12 weeks the almond group did experience some significant health benefits:

• higher levels of vitamin E, magnesium, and other nutrients

• lower levels of LDL cholesterol ("bad cholesterol")

• lower levels of calprotectin and other indicators of gut inflammation

All of this is good news for almond lovers, though it mostly just confirms what we already know.

Almond nutrients such as vitamin E are bioavailable, and so of course if people eat enough almonds, they'll obtain these nutrients.

Nor is it surprising that almonds can lower LDL cholesterol. This has been shown in prior studies and attributed to a variety of nutrients in almonds (fiber, unsaturated fats, phytosterols, etc.).

The birth of misinformation

As the news and social media catch wind of this study, at least three sources of misinformation can be seen. (My focus is on "journalists", but really this is about anyone with a large audience who writes or speaks about science.)

1. Journalists who don't read the study.

I don't really know who does or doesn't read these things, but here's an example of what I have in mind.

This Saturday, The Independent (the largest on-line news source in the UK, and the fifth largest source in the US) summarized the findings like this:

That's flat-out wrong. Almonds did not significantly reduce metabolic syndrome or any one of its symptoms.

2. Journalists who are misled by the researchers.

Last week, the New York Post (127.6 million visits last month, plus about half a million print subscribers) noted this:

Apologies if that's too small to read. This journalist references a significant drop in waist circumference. The Independent and other sources mention it too.

In fact, the changes were not significant.

This might seem like a trivial detail, but blogs and social media posts are already suggesting that almonds can make you slimmer.

Indeed they can ­– when they substitute for deep-fried Oreos and such – but that's not what the study shows.

Here, the researchers themselves are partly to blame for the misinformation.

By the 12th week of the study, the average waist size for the almond group had dropped from 140.7 centimeters to 140.0 centimeters. That roughly quarter-inch reduction wasn't statistically significant (though it came close).

Initially, the researchers acknowledge the non-significant change. But, as the article goes on, their language gets increasingly fuzzy. They end up referring more than once to a "modest" improvement in waist circumference, for instance.

Oh, and guess what? There's a scientific literature on the accuracy of waist measurements. (Who knew?)

According to a review of this literature, a difference of 0.7 centimeters is well within the range of error we'd expect when measuring peoples' waists.

In sum, whether you're reading about the study in the national news or a Reddit post, you might find mistaken references to slimmer waistlines. That 0.7 cm change was not significant; even if it had been, measurement error would be a likely cause.

3. Journalists who leave out key details.

Misinformation consists of more than just inaccurate or misleading statements. It also stems from the omission of key details.

For instance, the new study was funded by the Almond Board of California.

Oops.

This little tidbit was duly noted by the researchers but not by several news reports on their study.

I'm not playing "gotcha" here. Food manufacturers routinely fund studies on their products, and the results don't always yield happy news. But very often they do. Potential conflicts of interest should always be noted.

4. Journalists who embellish.

The National Enquirer, that famous purveyor of sleaze, actually does a fairly good job of describing the study. It's one of the outlets that listed all funding sources.

At the same time, the Enquirer hints at something the study didn't actually show:

The study says nothing about almond consumption, much less what "enough" consumption would be.

(Of course – as you'd expect from a publication that constantly frets about accusations of libel – their wording here is brilliantly squishy.)

The trajectory of misinformation

Here are a few of the ways information about new health studies moves through public consciousness:

Obviously this is incomplete – we'd need a box for a host of medical news websites, for instance – but it illustrates that misinformation emerges over time and across sources. In some cases, it works like the telephone game.

I've described a few ways that news reports have misrepresented the new study. Blogs and social media posts, whether they draw from the news or the original study, are already exacerbating the problem.

For instance, here's one of the more thorough summaries I found on Facebook:

The new study tells us nothing about risk of any sort, much less the risk of developing the three diseases mentioned here.

As for generative AI, the misinformation already spreading through the news and social media is getting duplicated – and worse – because the chatbots scrape information from those sources.

For instance, I gave four generative AI chatbots this fairly specific prompt:

"Do almond snacks improve the health of people with metabolic syndrome?"

All of the chatbots "knew" about the new study (though AI Overview and Grok 3 only referenced the study when I chose their "Deeper dive" or "DeepSearch" functions).

Unfortunately, all four duplicated at least one piece of misinformation I've discussed in this newsletter while adding more of their own (e.g., hallucinating other studies purportedly showing what the new one does).

This is concerning, given increasing reliance on AI for health-related information and guidance.

Two practical takeaways

1. Almonds tend to be good for you.

One cup of raw almonds, for instance, offers roughly half protein you need in a day (short two essential amino acids), half the fiber, and over a fifth of the calcium, iron, and potassium.

Almonds are also a good source of unsaturated fats, vitamin E, and other nutrients.

So, why the hedge that almonds "tend to be" healthful?

For one thing, you can overdo it. A one-cup serving might create problems such as intestinal discomfort. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends just 23 almonds per day, or about a quarter cup.

Some almond products also contain additives like sodium or chocolate that may need to be consumed moderation. As for almond milk, individual brands vary a lot in extent of fortification, but not even the best ones match the protein content or nutritional diversity of raw or dry roasted almonds.

2. Misinformation about new health studies is prevalent but avoidable.

This newsletter illustrates a few of the many sources of misinformation about new health studies.

Much of that misinformation can be avoided by reading the original research, but of course that's not a very practical suggestion. Few people have the time, the access (many of the articles are paywalled), or the patience to slog through arcane scientific and statistical content.

The next best thing is to keep up with new research via credible sources. Ideally, your sources aren't paid by the local Almond Board, they have some professional legitimacy, and they provide enough detail that you can decide for yourself how much to trust the data. (I am referring of course to sources like this one.:)

Thanks for reading!